MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Dec 08 2017, 10:47 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
CLERK
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
precedent or cited before any court except for the and Tax Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
James C. Spencer Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Dattilo Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dale A. Wells, December 8, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
39A01-1705-CR-1119
v. Appeal from the Jefferson Superior
Court.
The Honorable Michael J. Hensley,
State of Indiana, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
39D01-1612-F6-1134
Shepard, Senior Judge
[1] Appellant Dale Wells contends the trial court wrongly determined that he
refused a certified breath test. Concluding that Wells has not demonstrated that
the evidence leads to just one conclusion that is opposite of the trial court’s
decision, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1705-CR-1119 | December 8, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 21, 2016 at about 1 a.m., Indiana State Police Trooper Garrett
observed a truck fail to stop at a stop sign. Trooper Garrett stopped the truck
and noticed that the driver, identified as Wells, had glossy eyes and smelled of
mouthwash. Garrett had Wells perform field sobriety tests, which he failed.
Wells took a portable breath test and then agreed to take a certified breath test.
Wells was taken to the jail for the certified breath test, but when it came time
for him to provide a breath sample within the allotted time, he failed to do so.
Trooper Garrett considered Wells’ failure to provide a breath sample as a
refusal to submit to the chemical test.
[3] Wells subsequently filed a request to determine the validity of his refusal.
Following the hearing, the trial court determined that Wells’ actions constituted
a refusal to submit to the test. Wells now appeals this decision.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Because the trial court denied Wells’ petition, he appeals from a negative
judgment. See G.G.B.W. v. S.W., 80 N.E.3d 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). In such
circumstances, we will reverse the judgment only if it is contrary to law—that
is, where the evidence leads to but one conclusion and the trial court reached
the opposite conclusion. Id. In conducting our review, we consider the
evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee. Id.
[5] By operating a vehicle in Indiana, drivers impliedly consent to submit to a
chemical test. Ind. Code § 9-30-6-1 (1991). If a police officer has probable
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1705-CR-1119 | December 8, 2017 Page 2 of 5
cause to believe a driver is operating a vehicle while intoxicated, the officer
must offer the driver a chemical test. Ind. Code § 9-30-6-2 (1994). Refusal to
submit to the chemical test results in the suspension of driving privileges. Ind.
Code § 9-30-6-9 (2015). A person whose driving privileges have been
suspended in this manner may request a hearing to determine whether he or she
did in fact refuse the chemical test. Ind. Code § 9-30-6-10 (2005). The person
requesting the hearing has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence, and the court’s order on the issue is a final, appealable judgment. Id.
[6] Here, the trial court held a hearing on Wells’ petition filed pursuant to Section
9-30-6-10. The evidence at the hearing showed that Wells initially agreed to
take a chemical test. When Trooper Garrett and Wells arrived at the jail,
Trooper Garrett began preparing the machine for the test. When the machine’s
display screen instructs “Please blow,” the person has three minutes to perform.
Trooper Garrett testified that he explained the time limit to Wells and that if he
did not take the test it would be a refusal. Yet, when the time period began,
Wells questioned him and argued with him even though he was directed at least
three times to blow into the machine during the three-minute period. Trooper
Garrett described the conversation:
Because he asked me what he tested on the side of the road, and I
told him. I said .169. When I told him that, he said, “Well, I
already took your test.” I tried to explain to him, no, that’s a
preliminary breath test that — you know, this is a certified test.
He said, well, he wanted to talk to his lawyer. I explained to him
that under Indiana Implied Consent, when you get a driver’s
license, you imply that you give consent to take a certified test
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1705-CR-1119 | December 8, 2017 Page 3 of 5
and that’s not an option. At that point he became even more
argumentative saying I was violating his rights to an attorney,
and the three-minute time lapse was over . . . .
Tr. p. 10. Wells’ counsel asked Garrett if he made any effort to reset the
machine and allow Wells another chance to take the test. The Trooper
responded that, under the approved method of conducting the test, if Wells had
made any effort to take the test, even if he provided an insufficient sample, the
timer would have started over and he would have had a second chance.
However, “if [the person is] being uncooperative and argumentative with [the
officer] about the lawyer and ‘I’ve already taken my test,’ and doesn’t complete
the test within those three minutes, then I tally it up as a refusal based off his
actions not his words.” Id. at 11.
[7] Wells, on the other hand, testified that he and Trooper Garrett maintained “idle
chit-chat” for the duration of the three-minute testing period. Id. at 28. He
testified that he did not ask about rights and calling an attorney until after the
time period ended and the Trooper indicated it was a refusal.
[8] A refusal to submit to a chemical test occurs when the conduct of the driver is
such that a reasonable person in the officer’s position would be justified in
believing the driver was capable of refusal and manifested an unwillingness to
submit to the test. Burnell v. State, 56 N.E.3d 1146 (Ind. 2016). The Burnell
court explained, “[E]ven without saying ‘no’ or ‘I refuse’ a refusal nonetheless
may be established on the basis of conduct alone if the motorist has clearly been
asked to take a test. In short a physical failure to cooperate can amount to a
refusal.” Id. at 1150.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1705-CR-1119 | December 8, 2017 Page 4 of 5
[9] As Justice Slaughter recently wrote for a unanimous court, “The [Breath Test]
Rule does not require an officer to administer a second test to a subject who
obviously is not cooperating in providing one or more measurable, recordable
breath samples. Officers must—and do—have discretion under the Rule to
make the judgment call that the subject is being uncooperative and thus has
refused the test. An officer needn’t go through the motions to administer a test
to an obviously uncooperative subject. Common sense doesn’t require it, and
neither does the Rule.” Hurley v. State, 75 N.E.3d 1074, 1080 (Ind. 2017).
[10] The record here shows that, although first agreeing to take the test, Wells
refused to follow the officer’s instructions, talked through the three-minute time
period, insisted that he had already taken the test, claimed his rights had been
violated, and was generally uncooperative, justifying a reasonable person in the
officer’s position to believe that he manifested an unwillingness to submit to the
test. Wells has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating the evidence leads to
but one conclusion and the trial court reached an opposite conclusion.
[11] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 39A01-1705-CR-1119 | December 8, 2017 Page 5 of 5